Premium
Response of Proso Millet to Fungicide Seed Treatments1
Author(s) -
Nelson L. A.,
Kerr E. D.
Publication year - 1984
Publication title -
agronomy journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.752
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1435-0645
pISSN - 0002-1962
DOI - 10.2134/agronj1984.00021962007600050004x
Subject(s) - fungicide , thiram , sowing , seedbed , captan , seed treatment , smut , agronomy , biology , fludioxonil , maneb , panicum miliaceum , horticulture , germination , mancozeb
Fungicidal seed treatments are recommended in many crops as a prophylaxis because of their low cost and possible benefits. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a beneficial effect from treating proso ( Panicum miliaceum L.) seed with fungicides before sowing. Three tests were conducted near Sidney, NE on Mesic Aridic Argiustoll soil. The first 2‐year trial compared the influence of several seed treatment fungicides on proso emergence and grain yield, using a widely accepted planting method. Plant emergence and grain yield was not improved by any of the fungicide treatments. The second 2‐year trial compared two seed treatment fungicides and a check, using planting equipment that gave good and poor seedbeds. Again, fungicides did not improve stand or grain yield regardless of the quality of the seedbed. The third trial of 3 years duration investigated the effects of seed treatment fungicides on preventing head smut caused by Sphacelotheca destruens , a seedborne pathogen of proso. Seed treatment with captan { N ‐[(trichloromethyl)thio]‐4‐cyclohexene‐1,2‐dicarboximide}, thiram [tetramethylthiuram disulfidel, and maneb {manganese ethylenebis[dithiocarbamate]} were effective in reducing head smut infection by 93% over the untreated plots.